15 Years For Cocaine Dealer

[ai_Droid]

So if the problems arise because cocaine is illegal, why not legalise it?

 

Why not indeed. Different discussion entirely though

 

I've mixed views on it. I sometimes think it should be, but then when you go to somewhere like 'dam where grass is legal, you get the harder drugs right in your face on the street, and it's really not pleasant. Perhaps this wouldn't happen if they were all legal, but where do you stop? Legalised heroin?

[Knoxville]

So if the dealer brought in a " bad batch " of cocaine and alot of people were put in hospital/died, is 15 years still being horrible to him? After the costs of those poeple affected etc etc

 

People are going to take drugs, legal or not......I think the only good thing about them being dealt legaly would be that they were controlled, ie the quality of the drug, but then again how many people would want to sign a register saying " yes I take drugs " - would this is a private register or can people look at?

As I would want to know if my next door neighbour/work colleague was a smack head.

 

I think making it legal would bring a whole new world of problems here..........what would be the legal age for taking drugs? 16/18/21/100?

What about the health factors, if the drug is cheaper are people not going to use more of it?

 

If you cant do the time, dont do the crime.............then again isnt the drug situation worse in the prison than the out side?

[%age]

The only people I know who use and are involved with cocaine on this Island are from the supposedly upper echelons of or society.

 

No doubt their contacts for supply are better covered in their dealings. And all those involved rub shoulders with the high society and probably went to the same schools so of course they couldn't possibly be doing anything wrong when it comes to drugs.

[immortalpuppet]

Aww come on, it was his first offence..... oh no it wasnt, and he is a scumbag that has been avoiding arrest for years. Its no wonder he got the book threw at him.

[ai_Droid]

The amount Clinton was put away for isn't really that much (and the £80K value is using 'police' prices, not actual prices

 

 

He's got a reportedly good lifestyle with no documented source of income. That means he's doing more than what he was caught with, it also means he pays no taxes. He's got two kids too, who you're paying for. You think this is fine?

[Mutley]

It also shows alcohol to be considerably more harmful than ecstacy, and not much less harmful than cocaine. Do you drink? And if you don't, would you ban it?

 

I agree there's a double standard, and yes I do drink occasionally. But alcohol is legal and cocaine isn't, just that very fact means that cocaine supply has it's victims that aren't just the people who chose to take it.

 

The graph is pretty meaningless.

 

Harmful in what way? To society? To the individual? Also in what quantities? Are 10 tabs of LSD safer than then 10 pints? Also are we taking about the safety of pure ecstacy or the aspirin/worming tablet/chalk mix you bought off a friend of a friend down the pub? (He's a sound lad him. Proper stuff he has...)

 

To me it's pretty simple. Laws exist within the society you live in. If you choose to break them then you suffer the consequences.

This is separate from the topic of whether or not certain drugs should be legal or not or whether more should be spent on prevention.

[Silentbob]

Dont do the crime if you can't do the line erm I mean time.

[P.K.]

Not all people who use drugs are addled maniacs, don't believe all the hype. 15 years is absolutely ridiculous, I hope the person gets less if there's an appeal. Cocaine isn't a particularly nice drug, I've never really seen the attraction but some people like it, each to their own - you can always say 'no' (all by yourself, without the help of the nanny state).

Unfortunately some three-quarters of all UK crack and heroin users admit to funding their habit via crime. Not hype, fact. And they do commit a HUGE amount of crime.

 

A local man just got 15 years jail for importing a kilo of cocaine, in the UK he would have got around half that sentence

The punishment should fit the crime and this kind of inconsistent sentencing just shouts Banana Republic

You're just giving PK more ammo for the manx hate.

You MUST know VinnieK!

 

As I have posted before the IOM is a small place and everyone knows everyone else - and their business! As most citizens are decent and law-abiding, the relatively low crime rate is one of the islands best features, then dealing in drugs should be difficult. The recent successes they have had coupled with this sentence sends out exactly the right message imho. Sure there will always be an idiot who will try it on and we should all be very happy when they get locked up for a long time. Someone has posted that the sentence will achieve nothing. Not so. One less scumbag on the streets is always good news.

I do wonder though how much IOM crime is drug related? I can't help thinking that most island users are probably minted...

[Max Power]

I know of people who have taken so called recreational drugs in the past. Some of these drugs such as ecstacy, despite the media and police hype, have no effect on people in respect of the commiting of violent crime. They in fact have the opposite effect making them more sociable and empathatic. These people went through the phase and never became addicted to anything other than a short term addiction to enjoying a good night out!

 

The problem arises when drug taking is rife and your economy and social structure suffers because nobody gives a toss about anything! Human ambition and drive dissapears and everyone lives for the weekend bumbling through work making costly mistakes etc. I suppose that is the real danger.

 

Heroin etc is a completely different story, however I believe that many First world war veterans became addicted to heroin like opiates due to their injury treatment using morphine. Although they were dependant they lived full productive lives with a daily controlled dose!

[LQQ]

I think either way that the argument is that those punishments are too lenient, not that this drugs one is too harsh.

 

To an extent - certainly agree that most of the links I provided were to lenient sentences.

 

There are some people on here who argue that legalising drugs is acceptable (I am probably on their side in that - even though I am a middle aged father with two young daughters) And although people will argue against that I don't think there are many who would argue for Murder, Rape, etc and yet the sentencing for this crime seems to have placed it in that category.

 

I have never been a supporter of punishing people for potential crimes - if the Cocaine they seized was impure and potentially highly toxic I would charge the guy with intent to harm life (other than the harm which taking cocaine can cause). If not then I don't think you can add in the extra harm to the sentence.

 

If a dealer is ruining peoples lives then you would have to show he forced the drugs on people - or perhaps sold them to under 18s (which may be should be a different crime anyway)

 

And if the judge thinks they guy had gotten away with previous crimes and was giving him a sentence to represent that - then isn't he doing himself out of a job - we don't need a courts if we are going try people without evidence. The other things he seems to be accused of are tax evasion and welfare fraud. I don’t condone that but they should be brought before the courts as separate cases.

 

Judges should have the right of discretion but there does seem to be a bit too much leeway. A disproportionately long sentence can do as much harm to the justice system one that is too short.

 

 

--End rambling reply--

[ai_Droid]

If a dealer is ruining peoples lives then you would have to show he forced the drugs on people - or perhaps sold them to under 18s (which may be should be a different crime anyway)

 

I think you're over simplifying. How where the drugs produced? Who was exploited? How did they make it into europe, and then into the UK? Who had to risk a life sentence or even execution in some countries with a life threatening belly full of drugs to get them here? Did an innocent traveller face life in a foreign prison because his bag was used without his knowledge to get the drugs through customs? A bit of charlie at a party seems pretty innocent, but these aren't victimless crimes, far from it.

[LQQ]

If a dealer is ruining peoples lives then you would have to show he forced the drugs on people - or perhaps sold them to under 18s (which may be should be a different crime anyway)

 

I think you're over simplifying. How where the drugs produced? Who was exploited? How did they make it into europe, and then into the UK? Who had to risk a life sentence or even execution in some countries with a life threatening belly full of drugs to get them here? Did an innocent traveller face life in a foreign prison because his bag was used without his knowledge to get the drugs through customs? A bit of charlie at a party seems pretty innocent, but these aren't victimless crimes, far from it.

 

Although I agree with the sentiment of what you are saying you could be talking about wearing trendy trainers which have been produced in sweat shops in China or India. Which is to say the exploitation of the poor by the wealthy.

 

But the victims in your list are the victims of the state which imposes laws against drugs.

 

I think that most of the problems associated with drugs come from the illegal status of the drug and not from some inherent quality of it. So I would like to be able to answer: They were produced in a pharmaceutical factory in Basel Switzerland. The exploited were the same who are exploited by any company which makes a profit. They made it into the UK via a haulage company. No one put them in their belly or broke any laws as drugs are legal and so too is their sale and transportation.

[Sebrof]

If a dealer is ruining peoples lives then you would have to show he forced the drugs on people - or perhaps sold them to under 18s (which may be should be a different crime anyway)

 

I think you're over simplifying. How where the drugs produced? Who was exploited? How did they make it into europe, and then into the UK? Who had to risk a life sentence or even execution in some countries with a life threatening belly full of drugs to get them here? Did an innocent traveller face life in a foreign prison because his bag was used without his knowledge to get the drugs through customs? A bit of charlie at a party seems pretty innocent, but these aren't victimless crimes, far from it.

 

But all these problems are a result of the drug being illegal.

 

If it were legal, would the problems be worse? I suspect not, but I don't know because there is very little objective information available, and a huge amount of emotive claptrap.

 

Most of these drugs became illegal in the early part of the 20th C. Is there any evidence that society was so much worse before the drugs were prohibited? If there is, I haven't seen it.

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

If the drugs were legalised to the point that only registered drug users could get them at a specific time and place, then would drug dealers be needed?

 

I suppose it all depends on what drugs we are talking about here and what the criteria is for registering someone. Would legalisation mean that ANY drugs would be available but you had to register? What if we are talking about occasional users of cannbis or ecstacy. How would registration work and should it work? I don't like the idea personally.

 

If you have to pay for them I would think that there would be dealers if the dealers can sell their drugs for cheaper.

 

If they were not illegal for the registered users, would they commit crimes to feed their habit and would they need to do so?

 

The crimes you are talking about must be robbery if they involve drugs or the rare occasion when someone goes berserk on something and is violent. Stealing to pay for drugs is done by those who are addicts and if they can obtain their fix on a regular basis then there would be no reason for them to steal to further the habit. However, those are heroin are more likely to be those from disadvantaged or poorer backgrounds so although they might be on drugs they may still find it necessary to steal.

 

I think the situation is a bit different with cocaine. It is not as addictive as heroin and is used differently from heroin.

 

This is barmy. Of course its a deterrent. Does it deter people completely? No, some people will always think its worth the risk, but you don't simply get rid of sentencing because of that.

 

In respect of the deterrent effect of sentencing people to jail for dealing and possession, considering so many people are in prison for drug offences the deterrent effect is clearly non-existent or of little effect.

[ai_Droid]

Although I agree with the sentiment of what you are saying you could be talking about wearing trendy trainers which have been produced in sweat shops in China or India. Which is to say the exploitation of the poor by the wealthy.

 

They did it legally though. It may well be morally wrong, and I agree with you there, but nobody was forced at gunpoint to smuggle trainers up their bottom through an airport.

 

But the victims in your list are the victims of the state which imposes laws against drugs.

 

And unless you see a worldwide change, that'll continue to be the case. Separate argument as was said above, the fact is it is illegal so the sentence should reflect that.

 

I think that most of the problems associated with drugs come from the illegal status of the drug and not from some inherent quality of it. So I would like to be able to answer: They were produced in a pharmaceutical factory in Basel Switzerland. The exploited were the same who are exploited by any company which makes a profit. They made it into the UK via a haulage company. No one put them in their belly or broke any laws as drugs are legal and so too is their sale and transportation.

 

Yes, perhaps, but where do you stop? Legalise heroin? Crack?